Gloucester Area: Frequency, New Stations and Calling Patterns

[Charlie M.]

Gloucester is a well populated city and has an ok railway service. However, it is not served by CrossCountry trains to the north and south and adds on nearly 12 minutes to HST journeys.

Previously, plans for a Gloucestershire Parkway was put into place but then scrapped.

Yes, a new station is most ideal. But this wouldn’t be situated on the triangle near to the centre because the built a useless Morrison’s there instead. What are your thoughts on this? What is the likelyhood of a new station and would a resignaling help or what other solutions are there?

 

[Polarbear]

The irony being that Gloucester used to have a station that could be used by Birmingham - Bristol services without reversal. Unfortunately, Eastgate closed in 1975 & I recall that an ASDA is sat on the site of the former station.

 

[70014IronDuke]

The irony being that Gloucester used to have a station that could be used by Birmingham - Bristol services without reversal. Unfortunately, Eastgate closed in 1975 & I recall that an ASDA is sat on the site of the former station.

Not sure if it's irony - but the democratically elected City Council of Gloucester (or whatever the authority was called) wanted it closed, didn't they? So that the locals could avoid waiting at level crossings in their cars and could wizz to wherever they wanted to a bit faster.

In any case, the good denizens (and the bad) of Gloucester could change at Cheltenham, it's only a few miles away. That's what the BRB reckoned, and they were all wise men and had to be right. Inter-City ideology decreed that you couldn't have two Inter-city stations so close to one another. It just wasn't right or proper. Didn't fit the brand.

 

[sheff1]

Inter-City ideology decreed that you couldn't have two Inter-city stations so close to one another. It just wasn't right or proper. Didn't fit the brand.

Ah, that explains the building of Bristol Parkway.

 

[Western Sunset]

I would say the likelihood at the moment is zilch.

 

[edwin_m]

Ah, that explains the building of Bristol Parkway.

The distance between the two Bristol stations is that much further - effectively Bristol Parkway serves a different place.

If Cross Country is supposed to be a fast interurban service then there's a strong argument for the Cheltenham stop to serve both cities. However it's a shame the Gloucester-Bristol local service is so slow and last time I used it was worked by 150s with high-density seating. This service deserves to be run by 158s at least.

 

[DanTrain]

Why? Gloucester had a direct service to Birmingham, Bristol and London (I think!?), what is there to be gained, it makes much more sense to either drive to Cheltenham or simply change at Bristol or Birmingham, from where virtually the entiee country is accessible.

 

[Charlie M.]

Why? Gloucester had a direct service to Birmingham, Bristol and London (I think!?), what is there to be gained, it makes much more sense to either drive to Cheltenham or simply change at Bristol or Birmingham, from where virtually the entiee country is accessible.

I challenge people to daily commute to Bristol from Gloucester. I have one choice, a crowded 150 (sometimes 166 now - sometimes get a seat) which runs ridiculously slow. Why not drive to Cheltenham then? Car Park small-ish, traffic towards Cheltenham is awful and then once you are in Cheltenham you have to crawl up on the road. And where is the use of “bus” there?

A Gloucestershire Parkway should be built near Elmbridge Court, with Road connections to the Forest of Dean, 12 minutes off peak from Cheltenham Spa, 10 from Glos in the car and also connects North of Gloucester. A train shuttle between the three stations would mean XC and some peak GWR services could save time from Gloucester calls as well as shutting the local MP up.

 

[sheff1]

The distance between the two Bristol stations is that much further

??

Temple Meads to Parkway is 6 miles. Gloucester to Cheltenham is 6.5 miles.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes, a new station is most ideal. But this wouldn’t be situated on the triangle near to the centre because the built a useless Morrison’s there instead. What are your thoughts on this?

1. The triangle doesn't seem to me a good place for a station anyway. It's far too big to conveniently get a station on all three branches of the triangle, and if you can't do that, you may as well site any new station further along the line, where more trains use the same stretch of track and can therefore stop in the same place
2. I've be absolutely astonished if the Morrisons there really was 'useless'. Personally I've found supermarkets to be quite useful for things like buying food.

Not sure if it's irony - but the democratically elected City Council of Gloucester (or whatever the authority was called) wanted it closed, didn't they? So that the locals could avoid waiting at level crossings in their cars and could wizz to wherever they wanted to a bit faster.

To be fair, it was impossible to serve Gloucester Eastgate from trains to/from Wales anyway, so having just the one station does make things a lot more convenient for interchange. And I do agree with those who've suggested it wouldn't really be desirable for long distance XC trains to stop at both Gloucester and Cheltenham.

Personally, I'd think the best solution would be to re-open a few new stations between Cheltenham and Bristol, and run a half-hourly Cheltenham-Bristol service, allowing for connections at Cheltenham. Sadly, there's no chance of that happening in the near future either

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Why? Gloucester had a direct service to Birmingham, Bristol and London (I think!?), what is there to be gained, it makes much more sense to either drive to Cheltenham

Have you ever been to Cheltenham? The traffic is a constant nightmare. (Not helped by the fact it’s a very cycling-hostile town so there aren’t even realistic travel alternatives... but that’s another story.)

An hourly regional express between Bristol and Worcester needs to be part of the next GW franchise.

 

[edwin_m]

??

Temple Meads to Parkway is 6 miles. Gloucester to Cheltenham is 6.5 miles.

I was referring to the distance between Gloucester and a potential Gloucester Parkway, which would only be about a mile. So effectively the two stations are both serving Gloucester, whereas the two Bristol stations are far enough apart that they're not really competing with each other. Bristol Parkway also provides connections that wouldn't exist otherwise, particularly between the main XC route and South Wales.

 

[DanTrain]

An hourly regional express between Bristol and Worcester needs to be part of the next GW franchise.

That seems like a better solution, ideall being well timed with the Birmingham XC to connect at Cheltenham (which I had in my head as a small town, didn’t realsie traffic was so bad!)

 

[Senex]

Ah, that explains the building of Bristol Parkway.

Not quite — that was a way of getting extra trains serving Bristol by allowing the South Wales trains to make a nearby stop as well as having its own services to Temple Meads, rather than having them passing by (at reduced speed) just a few miles away.

 

[4141]

I challenge people to daily commute to Bristol from Gloucester. I have one choice, a crowded 150 (sometimes 166 now - sometimes get a seat) which runs ridiculously slow. Why not drive to Cheltenham then? Car Park small-ish, traffic towards Cheltenham is awful and then once you are in Cheltenham you have to crawl up on the road. And where is the use of “bus” there?

A Gloucestershire Parkway should be built near Elmbridge Court, with Road connections to the Forest of Dean, 12 minutes off peak from Cheltenham Spa, 10 from Glos in the car and also connects North of Gloucester. A train shuttle between the three stations would mean XC and some peak GWR services could save time from Gloucester calls as well as shutting the local MP up.

I have to disagree on the Elmbridge option, traffic at the Gloucester end of the Golden valley By Pass is bad enough most of the day already without that adding to it, and there's no way major services would stop at both Cheltenham and a new station at Elmbridge Court. I'm one of those who was more attracted to the idea of a new station for the growing areas of Kingsway and Quedgeley, to be built on or around the site of the old Dow-Mac works.

 

[NickBucks]

No chance I would suggest due to conflicting interests. Despite recently completed improvements to the Elmbridge Court roundabout traffic still queues on all approaches at peak times . A new parkway station with access there would add to the problems. Traffic for the station coming from the Barnwood link road would have to do a circumnavigation of said roundabout unless a very expensive new bridge was built. I do not believe the council in Gloucester has any appetite for it. They need all the visitors they can get to the city at present. Providing a bus service to the station would be costly and would duplicate other services between Gloucester and Cheltenham. Cheltenham on the other hand I am sure likes the benefit of the station despite it being a distance from the town, with very little parking . The Gold Cup meeting brings many rail travellers to the town and having to transport said passengers from a parkway station to the racecourse would add to the traffic problems in Cheltenham already highlighted. As for the rail companies I suggest they are happy with the status quo despite GWR having to reverse the HST / 800 units on the London services. In summary Gloucester does not want it whilst Cheltenham is happy to maintain the status quo

 

[Western Lord]

Not sure if it's irony - but the democratically elected City Council of Gloucester (or whatever the authority was called) wanted it closed, didn't they? So that the locals could avoid waiting at level crossings in their cars and could wizz to wherever they wanted to a bit faster.

In any case, the good denizens (and the bad) of Gloucester could change at Cheltenham, it's only a few miles away. That's what the BRB reckoned, and they were all wise men and had to be right. Inter-City ideology decreed that you couldn't have two Inter-city stations so close to one another. It just wasn't right or proper. Didn't fit the brand.

I believe that the City Council were told that the same services would serve the rebuilt Gloucester Central, in spite of the need to reverse. BR made special provision for reversal of loco hauled trains with a lay over loco provided at the eastern end of the platform to speed up reversal. In spite of the introduction of HSTs, much easier to reverse, the service gradually got worse which is not what the Council expected or were promised. It would be interesting to see the relative usage figures for Cheltenham and Gloucester when both were served by Bristol-Birmingham trains. Gloucester is larger, is the county town (actually a city of course) and the station is much better situated for the centre than Cheltenham.

 

[Mintona]

I don’t like the idea of a new station at Elmbridge Court. It’s too close to both existing stations at Gloucester and Cheltenham.

A much better solution would be a Parkway/interchange station near Junction 12 of the M5, at Quedgeley. The site of the afore-mentioned Dow-Mac works is ideal. Gloucester spreads out really far to the south now, so much so that it is a good 20 minute drive from Quedgeley and Hardwicke to the city centre. It would open many journey options for people living in the south of the city, and I imagine vastly reduce congestion on the A38.

It would also create a situation where there is one station to the south of Gloucester (Quedgeley) and one to the north (Cheltenham) where interchange could be made from fast trains to get into Gloucester station itself. Rather than two to the north. Would save quite a bit of time if services were timed correctly.

 

[MarkyT]

I suggest platforms on the main line near Morrisons with a people mover shuttle system to the central station. Parking might be achieved by decking the Morrisons car park or creating a new parking site to the south of Metz Way. The DHL depot site to the east of the main line also looks abandoned in recent aerial photography. Expanded parking in this area would also benefit those departing from the existing Central platforms who could also use the shuttle. GW Cheltenham and XC Bristol trains could use the new platforms while XC Cardiff trains would continue to use the existing platforms at Central, also GW stopping services between Bristol to Worcester which could thus be 'looped' with a reverse to allow an express to overtake via the new platforms. The people mover would be just over 1km log and transfer time would be in the order of two minutes.

 

[SwindonBert]

I think the answer to the original question is no chance

There is talk of improving the underpass, I'd like to see a new entrance/ exit from platform 4 to link with this underpass & Great Western Rd, this would help those going to either Kingsholm or the hospital

 

[Charlie M.]

I suggest platforms on the main line near Morrisons with a people mover shuttle system to the central station. Parking might be achieved by decking the Morrisons car park or creating a new parking site to the south of Metz Way. The DHL depot site to the east of the main line also looks abandoned in recent aerial photography. Expanded parking in this area would also benefit those departing from the existing Central platforms who could also use the shuttle. GW Cheltenham and XC Bristol trains could use the new platforms while XC Cardiff trains would continue to use the existing platforms at Central, also GW stopping services between Bristol to Worcester which could thus be 'looped' with a reverse to allow an express to overtake via the new platforms. The people mover would be just over 1km log and transfer time would be in the order of two minutes.
View attachment 48815

I like that idea. Sounds simple and not too different with locations etc.

 

[HowardGWR]

I suggest platforms on the main line near Morrisons with a people mover shuttle system to the central station. Parking might be achieved by decking the Morrisons car park or creating a new parking site to the south of Metz Way. The DHL depot site to the east of the main line also looks abandoned in recent aerial photography. Expanded parking in this area would also benefit those departing from the existing Central platforms who could also use the shuttle. GW Cheltenham and XC Bristol trains could use the new platforms while XC Cardiff trains would continue to use the existing platforms at Central, also GW stopping services between Bristol to Worcester which could thus be 'looped' with a reverse to allow an express to overtake via the new platforms. The people mover would be just over 1km log and transfer time would be in the order of two minutes.
View attachment 48815

Should the 'people mover' be just an electric shuttle bendy bus - much cheaper. Admittedly you did not write 'a train'.

 

[MarkyT]

Should the 'people mover' be just an electric shuttle bendy bus - much cheaper. Admittedly you did not write 'a train'.

I don't mind what specific technology is used but I suggest it must, at least for the most part, operate along a dedicated right of way so any traffic congestion on Metz Way could not affect journey time significantly. Ideally it should also be automated so staffing problems couldn't prevent service and operating hours could be maximised. From a user perspective it should ideally be viewed by users as a 'horizontal lift' that seamlesssly connects the terminals as if they were parts of a single facility. We had a thread about this concept a while ago, with suggestions of where such systems might be employed. It branched from another thread suggesting a cable car in Worcester! Automated rubber tyred pod shuttles, minibus sized or larger perhaps, that could run fixed routes along dedicated lanes or with general traffic are supposedly 'just around the corner' and are likely to be far more practical, at least in the early days, than fully free ranging autonomous private vehicles. Another technology discussed in the previous thread was funicular style cable haulage as offered by Dopplemayr and others. That keeps the vehicles extremely simple with no propulsion equipment and control and guidance on board, but clearly also requires a winding house to be built somewhere along the alignment, which must be completely segregated (unless a Great Orme style of operation was adopted).

 

[Pete_uk]

There was a plan to put two bay platforms at Cheltenham a while ago which I think should be done with other upgrades. 5 car 800 would be good for Worcester to Bristol peak times.

 

[HowardGWR]

You would not want the people mover to be as uselessly 'over the top' as the PISMOVER (yes, I know, how unfortunate) in Pisa.

 

[MarkyT]

You would not want the people mover to be as uselessly 'over the top' as the PISMOVER (yes, I know, how unfortunate) in Pisa.

It's probably about right for the job over the distance, and Doplemayr seem to be competing successfully with the 'traditional' APM (Automated People Mover) players like Bombardier and Siemens in the lucrative airport market using this technology. One problem these cable systems have is that end evacuation is impractical due to the need for open access between the rails to the moving cables and roller wheels. Cable isn't alone in this respect. The Siemens AirVal has a centre steering rail. This could be inset in a built up surface walkway flush with the tyre running surface however like the Translohr system it was derived from, just as a haulage cables can be accessed via a narrow arm through a slot. For APMs side evacuation tends to be the norm however, so continuous platform-level walkways are specified at one side, which pose their own risks of evacuees falling onto the guideway. What might be more economical and possibly safer for a small system is a low floor double ended, multi-section as necessary, autonomous electric guided bus running (largely) on super-capacitors that are capable of being recharged very quickly at each end of the run. With no driving cabs at the ends, full width end evacuation might thus be practical, even end loading by the same door opening for smaller vehicles and with higher frequencies, hence minimising terminal size and cost and saving on vehicle complexity. Guidance might be by electronic means, painted line, embedded wire or transponder following or the traditional mechanical method, adapted as necessary for bidirectional operation. Maybe a mixture with line/wire following in low speed terminal switching and mechanically assured once at pace on the line haul. Another possibility for guideway might be University of Warwick's Very Light Rail initiative.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I believe that the City Council were told that the same services would serve the rebuilt Gloucester Central, in spite of the need to reverse.

I hadn't realised that. So the finger of guilt swings back towards BR. Gloucester Council should have had it written into a legal document - but I suppose nobody thought of it, and if they had, nobody at BR would agree to it.

... BR made special provision for reversal of loco hauled trains with a lay over loco provided at the eastern end of the platform to speed up reversal.

To be honest, that would have been considered normal at the time. That's what they did eg at Nottingham every two hours in both directions, and at Leeds, IIRC, with the Thames-Clyde.

In spite of the introduction of HSTs, much easier to reverse, the service gradually got worse which is not what the Council expected or were promised.

Indeed. In other words, Gloucester was shafted. Which is what I had always thought originally, but then I'd read the City had been complicit in the whole affair.

It would be interesting to see the relative usage figures for Cheltenham and Gloucester when both were served by Bristol-Birmingham trains. Gloucester is larger, is the county town (actually a city of course) and the station is much better situated for the centre than Cheltenham.

Totally agree.

 

[70014IronDuke]

.... To be fair, it was impossible to serve Gloucester Eastgate from trains to/from Wales anyway, so having just the one station does make things a lot more convenient for interchange. And I do agree with those who've suggested it wouldn't really be desirable for long distance XC trains to stop at both Gloucester and Cheltenham.

OK, so why not alternate stops? But inter-city trains stop at both Wellingborough and Kettering. Of they do for now.

... Personally, I'd think the best solution would be to re-open a few new stations between Cheltenham and Bristol, and run a half-hourly Cheltenham-Bristol service, allowing for connections at Cheltenham. Sadly, there's no chance of that happening in the near future either

Is there the capacity, even if the stock were availability?

 

[70014IronDuke]

I suggest platforms on the main line near Morrisons with a people mover shuttle system to the central station. ...
View attachment 48815

If you are going to build another station for the Bristol line trains, I'd have thought the other suggestion made here, to have one somewhere near the A38 - M5 crossings around Quedgely would be a better idea in terms of serving more people better.

 

[4141]

If you are going to build another station for the Bristol line trains, I'd have thought the other suggestion made here, to have one somewhere near the A38 - M5 crossings around Quedgely would be a better idea in terms of serving more people better.

The advantage of that being that it could well bring new customers from the previously mentioned developing areas on that side of the city, who probably wouldn't travel into the city centre to piddle around with people movers. Am I correct in thinking there would be more space for the possibility of platform loops as well?